Published: Tuesday, February 10, 2009
CHILD-CARE SUBSIDIES
Spend on quality, not red tape
Helping low-income parents get ahead by paying at least part of their child-care costs is a proper role for state government. It opens pathways to greater self-sufficiency and stronger families, reducing future demand on state funding for social services.
But high-quality care requires subsidies that cover its true costs. Currently, they don't, and two very different remedies are being considered by the Legislature.
One would establish regular increases in the level of state subsidies, an approach that's simple and effective -- although it likely needs to be delayed until we're past the current budget crisis.
The other would require union membership for workers and supervisors at child-care centers that accept state subsidies. The idea, pushed as it was last session by union interests, is to make the level of state support part of the collective-bargaining process, improving quality by through higher wages and better working conditions. People who work for private child-care providers would still be paid by their employers, but for the purposes of bargaining, they'd be considered state employees.
Such a bureaucratic approach strikes us heavy-handed and probably counter-productive. To avoid having their workplaces unionized, owners of small child-care operations could simply stop accepting subsidized children -- clearly, a step in the wrong direction.
That's why YMCAs, including Snohomish County's, oppose the union-backed bills (SB 5572 and HB 1329), even though they and other large child-care providers were excluded from their requirements, presumably to entice them to stay on the political sidelines. The YMCA took a principled stand, though, arguing that it makes no sense to divert state money to an expensive bargaining process, one whose goals can be better achieved more directly.
That way is contained in SB 5506, which over time would increase subsidies to the true cost of care. Currently, shortages are made up through community fund-raising campaigns or by charging more to families who aren't subsidized. The bill would also fix a current flaw, in which child-care providers aren't reimbursed for enrolled children who are absent, even though absences don't reduce a provider's costs. The bill also requires child-care centers to provide families with age-appropriate educational and parenting materials.
Subsidizing child care so low-income parents can work is the right thing to do, but it isn't cheap. Every dollar spent by the state should go directly to improving care, not to creating new layers of bureaucracy.
But high-quality care requires subsidies that cover its true costs. Currently, they don't, and two very different remedies are being considered by the Legislature.
One would establish regular increases in the level of state subsidies, an approach that's simple and effective -- although it likely needs to be delayed until we're past the current budget crisis.
The other would require union membership for workers and supervisors at child-care centers that accept state subsidies. The idea, pushed as it was last session by union interests, is to make the level of state support part of the collective-bargaining process, improving quality by through higher wages and better working conditions. People who work for private child-care providers would still be paid by their employers, but for the purposes of bargaining, they'd be considered state employees.
Such a bureaucratic approach strikes us heavy-handed and probably counter-productive. To avoid having their workplaces unionized, owners of small child-care operations could simply stop accepting subsidized children -- clearly, a step in the wrong direction.
That's why YMCAs, including Snohomish County's, oppose the union-backed bills (SB 5572 and HB 1329), even though they and other large child-care providers were excluded from their requirements, presumably to entice them to stay on the political sidelines. The YMCA took a principled stand, though, arguing that it makes no sense to divert state money to an expensive bargaining process, one whose goals can be better achieved more directly.
That way is contained in SB 5506, which over time would increase subsidies to the true cost of care. Currently, shortages are made up through community fund-raising campaigns or by charging more to families who aren't subsidized. The bill would also fix a current flaw, in which child-care providers aren't reimbursed for enrolled children who are absent, even though absences don't reduce a provider's costs. The bill also requires child-care centers to provide families with age-appropriate educational and parenting materials.
Subsidizing child care so low-income parents can work is the right thing to do, but it isn't cheap. Every dollar spent by the state should go directly to improving care, not to creating new layers of bureaucracy.
Comments
(